Actually, I would like to know if they're going to "go cold" by waiting on the order of 30-40 days for the community election to conclude first (per Drummond's hypothetical timeline).
That also gives us some time to discuss a full slate of 5 and reach out to all with a coherent unified plan. -DeWitt On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > DeWitt Clinton wrote: > > > > The second reservation is that I feel we should have a plan in place for > > the full five new corporate board members (and backup choices), rather > > than cherry picking one a time. The goal would be to create a diverse > > balance between vendors, consumers, international, domestic, etc, which > > is hard to do with a coherent strategy in place. > > > > I'm conscious of the fact that there are some companies ready and > waiting to give us the money and join the board *now*, and those leads > might go cold if we delay much longer. > > So while I agree that we don't want to arbitrarily add random companies, > I think there is a compromise where we recruit those companies that are > already interested while they're still interested and then fill in the > remaining seats all at the same time as you say. > > That is of course unless anyone feels that the current potentials should > be *rejected*. I don't think there's anything particularly objectionable > about them. Do you? > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
